03.02.08

a rule of life

Posted in community, ekklesia, formation, gospel, leadership, missional order, theology at 6:00 am by len

Carman asks,

“How would you explain the difference to someone between a missional order and a local church. In speaking to someone about initiating a missional order, how would you describe the primary differences between the two? How would starting and becoming involved in a missional order differ from starting and becoming involved in a local church?”

She notes that we are all novices in this journey. Few of us have experience with missional orders, which makes us dependent on other explorers, on the few who have gone before us (even long dead explorers in the Benedictines, Ignatians, and Celts) and on the Holy Spirit.

It might help to start with a logical distinction. All horses have four legs, but not all things with four legs are horses. So, all churches involve a component of implied covenant or shared practices, but not all structures that involve covenant or shared practices are churches. A missional order, or a rule of life (a rule forms the heart of an “order” – “order” means “ordered” and is shorthand for rule, from “regula” which means rhythm) is a means to an end, the lens that focuses intention, and through which we gain new perspective on all of life.

Northumbria amounts to a church within the church, yet they speak of their order as a community. When Pete Askew addressed this at our meeting, what I heard was this: “we use the language of community within our group because we are significantly related to one another. But in relation to the larger church, we are an order.”

What interests me about that perspective is just that: it is perspectival. A good analogy is light: under some conditions it is a particle, but under others it’s a wave. It depends on the observer. Or, it depends on the question you ask. But light remains light, and its function doesn’t change. Perhaps a missional order will at times appear to the observer as just that: a rule, a guide, something that provides cohesion and empowers a people and a purpose, a structure that transcends location. Perhaps at other times it will look more like a community all its own.

A covenant is at the heart of the gospel, and while the word only appears a few times in the New Testament, it defines who we are as the people of God. In our shared practice, a covenant is not a vehicle for control but provides a focus and center. Henri Nouwen writes, “A Rule offers ‘creative boundaries within which God’s loving presence can be recognized and celebrated.’ It does not prescribe but invite, it does not force but guide, it does not threaten but warn, it does not instill fear but points to love. In this it is a call to freedom, freedom to love.”

A missional order is described by a set of shared values and practices. Many “vision statements” stop at values, or describe outward and programmatic practices but do not agree on shared spiritual disciplines. A missional order describes a rhythm of outward and inward life and embraces a structure of accountability toward those rhythms.

Many churches can participate in a missional order, but they are still churches when they do not have such an order. Many individuals can participate in a missional order, but be members and ministers of distinct churches. In this sense the order transcends geography or local commitments and is something like a larger umbrella. Perhaps it is similar to a denominational structure, except that it is defined by purpose and common practice and not so much by theological distinction and territory. Perhaps a missional order is the post-colonial replacement for denominations, just as it existed long before denominations were conceived.

As for initiating such an order, I would encourage you to think of joining an existing order. The ALLELON network will initiate a missional order soon, and we have been in conversation with the Northumbria Community as well as UNOH in Australia. There are a number of reasons I suggest this, but primarily because in these days it is important that we find means of connecting with the larger body rather than further fragmenting. All our practices should move us toward recognition of our real peoplehood, our shared identity and shared purpose. Affiliation is the movement of the Spirit. We need each other, and we need to find ways to embrace wider diversity. In this way we grow stronger and we learn to listen to the Spirit.

By now you might be able to answer your own question: how would starting and becoming involved in a missional order be similar to.. and different from.. joining a church community? Joining a missional order and joining a church — these are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they usually connected. While churches tend to run classes for new members — you can join in a weekend — missional orders often have novitiates that extend for years, and often involve graded entry.

A helpful way of thinking about the relationship of a missional order to a traditional faith community is described by Alan Roxburgh in chapter 7 of Missional Church, pp 201-214. The structure he describes is a bounded set at the center (the order or rule) and a centered set for the larger congregation. If you have or can obtain the book its well worth the time and effort.

Metaphors can really help here, and Frost and Hirsch in The Shaping of Things to Come use some great ones..

“In the bounded set, it is clear who is in and who is out (fences, not wells), based on a well-defined ideological-cultural boundary –usually moral and cultural codes as well as creedal definitions.. but it doesn’t have much of a core definition beyond these boundaries. It is hard at the edges, soft at the center.”

The centered set, on the other hand, “is like the Outback ranch with the wellspring at its center. It has very strong ideology at the center but no boundaries. It is hard at the center, soft at the edges. We suggest that in the centered set lies a real clue to the structuring of missional communities in the emerging culture.

“The traditional church makes it quite difficult for people to negotiate its maze of cultural, theological, and social barriers in order to get “in.”.. and by the time newcomers have scaled the fences built around the church, they are so socialized as churchgoers that they are not likely to be able to maintain their connection with the social groupings they came from…

“We propose a better and more biblical way.. is to … sink wells. If you sustain your connection with the water sources, you will find a whole host of people relating to Jesus from different walks of life. We allow people to come to Jesus from any direction and from any distance. The Person of Jesus stands.. at the center.”

Permalink